topic Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY in Politics, Current Eventshttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981505#M807350
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Derserve it or not, they are still dependent on taxpayers.&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4">Yes, but we earn it.&nbsp; How would you like to be separated from your family for months at a time; miss your children's birthdays; serve several tours in a combat zone; all at pay scales lower than from industry?&nbsp; Ever been shot at and subject to hazardous conditions for a low pay scale?&nbsp; Signed a contract for x number of years in return for a retirement program.&nbsp; You don't do that in private industry?</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">It is besides the point who pays the pension except for cynical liberals.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Again, it doesn’t matter. They are dependent on tax payers and legislators. That&nbsp;pension could go away with the swoop of a pen.</P>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:52:51 GMTManicProgressive2018-03-14T16:52:51ZTO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980496#M806692
<P><A href="https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/social-security-proposal-gain-traction-130600609.html" target="_blank">https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/social-security-proposal-gain-traction-130600609.html</A></P>Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:08:43 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980496#M806692mandm842018-03-11T20:08:43ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980522#M806709
<P>Stupid proposal for lots of reasons but the biggest is that it turns the program into a welfare program rather than an insurance program.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><EM>From the article</EM></P><P><STRONG><I>The bigger issue is that Murray's proposal would raise the payroll tax, albeit modestly relative to other proposals from her own party, on those earning $400,000 or more in earned income. Even though taxing high earners is the single most popular way of fixing Social Security, based on a number of national surveys, <FONT color="#FF0000"><U>lumping an extra tax on the wealthy wouldn't provide them with any additional Social Security benefit come retirement.</U></FONT></I></STRONG></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><STRONG><I>I know what you're probably thinking: "The rich aren't reliant on Social Security, so they should pay extra tax to shore up the Social Security Trust." However, a maximum taxable-earnings cap -- the aforementioned $128,400 figure in 2018 -- exists because there's also a maximum monthly payout from the Social Security Administration at full retirement age. In other words, it's not "fair" to add a 2% payroll tax to an extra, say, $5 million in income if that individual won't see an extra cent in Social Security benefits.&nbsp;</I></STRONG></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Perhaps someday, sooner rather than later, I hope, they will devise a passable plan for reform that will be fair, save the system and preserve the nature of the program.</P>Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:44:54 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980522#M806709GailL12018-03-11T20:44:54ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980523#M806710
<P><FONT size="4">No doubt something needs done. That's why I hope the Dems take the House and Senate back. Without that happening, anything done will be on&nbsp;the backs of our seniors and the middle class and below.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">I like some of those proposals.</FONT></P>Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:46:01 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980523#M806710ChasKy532018-03-11T20:46:01ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980527#M806714
<P>Of course from a Plutocratic view , it's Stupid !!!</P>Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:59:54 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980527#M806714mandm842018-03-11T20:59:54ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980554#M806734
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="300286"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>Stupid proposal for lots of reasons but the biggest is that it turns the program into a welfare program rather than an insurance program.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><EM>From the article</EM></P><P><STRONG><I>The bigger issue is that Murray's proposal would raise the payroll tax, albeit modestly relative to other proposals from her own party, on those earning $400,000 or more in earned income. Even though taxing high earners is the single most popular way of fixing Social Security, based on a number of national surveys, <FONT color="#FF0000"><U>lumping an extra tax on the wealthy wouldn't provide them with any additional Social Security benefit come retirement.</U></FONT></I></STRONG></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><STRONG><I>I know what you're probably thinking: "The rich aren't reliant on Social Security, so they should pay extra tax to shore up the Social Security Trust." However, a maximum taxable-earnings cap -- the aforementioned $128,400 figure in 2018 -- exists because there's also a maximum monthly payout from the Social Security Administration at full retirement age. In other words, it's not "fair" to add a 2% payroll tax to an extra, say, $5 million in income if that individual won't see an extra cent in Social Security benefits.&nbsp;</I></STRONG></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Perhaps someday, sooner rather than later, I hope, they will devise a passable plan for reform that will be fair, save the system and preserve the nature of the program.</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="300286"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>Stupid proposal for lots of reasons but the biggest is that it turns the program into a welfare program rather than an insurance program.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><EM>From the article</EM></P><P><STRONG><I>The bigger issue is that Murray's proposal would raise the payroll tax, albeit modestly relative to other proposals from her own party, on those earning $400,000 or more in earned income. Even though taxing high earners is the single most popular way of fixing Social Security, based on a number of national surveys, <FONT color="#FF0000"><U>lumping an extra tax on the wealthy wouldn't provide them with any additional Social Security benefit come retirement.</U></FONT></I></STRONG></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><STRONG><I>I know what you're probably thinking: "The rich aren't reliant on Social Security, so they should pay extra tax to shore up the Social Security Trust." However, a maximum taxable-earnings cap -- the aforementioned $128,400 figure in 2018 -- exists because there's also a maximum monthly payout from the Social Security Administration at full retirement age. In other words, it's not "fair" to add a 2% payroll tax to an extra, say, $5 million in income if that individual won't see an extra cent in Social Security benefits.&nbsp;</I></STRONG></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Perhaps someday, sooner rather than later, I hope, they will devise a passable plan for reform that will be fair, save the system and preserve the nature of the program.</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><STRONG><FONT size="4" color="#800000">Totally bogus argument. The payment "cap" is the based on the payment to an individual who had made the maximum contribution EVERY YEAR. There is no reason to NOT increase the payment if the person now contributes on $250,000 instead of $128,400. See, the calculation of payments is based on each year's contribution, so the pay-out for the $250,000 cap will not be applied in full for 30 years. Since the Revenue increase from raising the cap to $250,000 immediately will be much greater than the pay-out, the cap increase will cause the SSTF to continue to grow for another 20 years, and with the accumulated interest (currently 4%pa) the fund will remain solvent FOREVER.</FONT></STRONG></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><STRONG><FONT size="4" color="#800000">If you examine the CBO reports on SS you will notice they NEVER calculate the impact of an immediate increase in the cap to $250,000, they always want to "phase it in" over a decade or so, which is the ONLY reason the increase in the SSTF is not enough to sustain the system FOREVER. </FONT></STRONG></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><STRONG><FONT size="4" color="#800000">The NRAGOP opposes the immediate increase in the cap to $250,000 (covering the same portion of total income that Reagan's increase covered) simply because it makes privatization of the SS system totally absurd and only benefits the bottom 99%.</FONT></STRONG></P>Sun, 11 Mar 2018 21:51:40 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980554#M806734Olderscout662018-03-11T21:51:40ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980587#M806760
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1375301"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>Of course from a Plutocratic view , it's Stupid !!!</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It is NOT a Plutocratic view, it is the CHANGE to the actual historical philosophical nature of the Social Security program. &nbsp;It is why we have the payroll tax cap and the maximum benefit.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>You want more - OK</P><P>We live in a society where it is not uncommon to have not just one ex-spouse but several. &nbsp;This proposal could actually cause even more divorces. &nbsp;At least now a divorced spouse has to have at least 10 years into the marriage commitment to stake a claim on the other spouses benefit.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>You need to read the question proposed by &nbsp;mp70559584 &nbsp;on the Social Security board to get a clear view of this problem with multiple marriages during a lifetime. I thought it quite amusing and complicated for the SS program.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>I like the suggestion which I discussed with someone on this forum a while back - during a marriage, each member of the couple gets 1/2 Social Security credit for all the income which is reported by the couple during their marriage. &nbsp;That way there is no problem in figuring the benefit when they retire without any concern whether or not they stayed together 1 year or 40 + years they each get credit for their time together and the income is reported as such. &nbsp;This would work for everybody regardless of the number of marriages or the time they were together.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>I have no problem raising the age of dependency for kids to an early 20's age as long as they are in school but let's do it the other way too - quit school at 16 and your benefits stop.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Increasing the benefits for widows to where they are getting close to receiving both their own benefits and that of their deceased spouse - seems unfair to those who never marry. &nbsp;However, the restructuring of contributions like I described above during marriage would most likely increase the benefit for widowers just because the income amount used to figure the benefit would be higher.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>IMO, it seems it would be better to fix the financial problem in the current system and then make sure the finances for the system are adequate for any other increases in benefits. &nbsp; I mean a 23% decrease in benefits come 2034 would affect everybody then getting a benefit or planning to get one.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>As the Trustees have said every year, it is gonna take a combination of efforts to fix the system - more income and less outflow - if we want to keep the historical philosophy of &nbsp;the insurance &nbsp;program as opposed to making it just another welfare program.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P>Sun, 11 Mar 2018 22:59:51 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980587#M806760GailL12018-03-11T22:59:51ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980639#M806790
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="300286"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>Stupid proposal for lots of reasons but the biggest is that it turns the program into a welfare program rather than an insurance program.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><EM>From the article</EM></P><P><STRONG><I>The bigger issue is that Murray's proposal would raise the payroll tax, albeit modestly relative to other proposals from her own party, on those earning $400,000 or more in earned income. Even though taxing high earners is the single most popular way of fixing Social Security, based on a number of national surveys, <FONT color="#FF0000"><U>lumping an extra tax on the wealthy wouldn't provide them with any additional Social Security benefit come retirement.</U></FONT></I></STRONG></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><STRONG><I>I know what you're probably thinking: "The rich aren't reliant on Social Security, so they should pay extra tax to shore up the Social Security Trust." However, a maximum taxable-earnings cap -- the aforementioned $128,400 figure in 2018 -- exists because there's also a maximum monthly payout from the Social Security Administration at full retirement age. In other words, it's not "fair" to add a 2% payroll tax to an extra, say, $5 million in income if that individual won't see an extra cent in Social Security benefits.&nbsp;</I></STRONG></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Perhaps someday, sooner rather than later, I hope, they will devise a passable plan for reform that will be fair, save the system and preserve the nature of the program.</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>In the long run the country and its people would be better off under the&nbsp;proposed plan. There is nothing wrong with a higher amount if they can afford it. SS is a retirement program all pay into, and all&nbsp;benefit from. There would be nothing wrong if someone like Warren B got nothing back for what he paid into it. The Country in the long run is better off and thus we all get a&nbsp;return even the people not drawing from it. Only people who really have no understanding of what SS was designed for would object. Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people. Even Trump at one time supported approaches like this, and his supporters are the biggest users of these type of programs (welfare). Sadly there are people who live among the his supporters who take advantage of them all of their lives. Look at WV.</P>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 01:11:59 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980639#M806790john2582018-03-12T01:11:59ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980767#M806864
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1891044"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR />In the long run the country and its people would be better off under the&nbsp;proposed plan. There is nothing wrong with a higher amount if they can afford it. SS is a retirement program all pay into, and all&nbsp;benefit from. There would be nothing wrong if someone like Warren B got nothing back for what he paid into it. The Country in the long run is better off and thus we all get a&nbsp;return even the people not drawing from it. Only people who really have no understanding of what SS was designed for would object. Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people. Even Trump at one time supported approaches like this, and his supporters are the biggest users of these type of programs (welfare). Sadly there are people who live among the his supporters who take advantage of them all of their lives. Look at WV.</BLOCKQUOTE><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><STRONG><EM>"<SPAN>Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people".</SPAN></EM></STRONG></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">Not so. But they would probably try to kill any changes that went opposed to FDR's concept and turns SS into a "wealth redistribution" system.</FONT></P>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 15:42:19 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980767#M806864rk91522018-03-12T15:42:19ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980784#M806877
<P>Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole. &nbsp;I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous.&nbsp;</P>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:42:13 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980784#M806877ManicProgressive2018-03-12T16:42:13ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980787#M806880
<P>TM67 me too !!</P>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:52:01 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980787#M806880mandm842018-03-12T16:52:01ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980805#M806892
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole. &nbsp;I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous.&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4">If I send you my address would you send me my social security check instead of it coming from the government?&nbsp; Could you include a more substantial cost of living increase than the government does?</FONT></P>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 17:42:09 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980805#M806892TxGrandpa22018-03-12T17:42:09ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980816#M806898
<P><FONT color="#800080"><STRONG><I><FONT color="#800080">S</FONT>ince Social Security began,&nbsp; the more extreme sectors of the Republican Party have pushed hard for eliminating the system entirely.&nbsp; It's welfare....the 'government' shouldn't be doing it.&nbsp; An absurd view from people employing an absurd ideology.&nbsp; The People establish government to promote the general welfare.&nbsp; Says so in an authoratative souce.</I></STRONG></FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT color="#800080"><EM><STRONG>This same political sector is s</STRONG></EM></FONT><FONT color="#800080"><EM><STRONG>ometimes truthful, most times not,&nbsp; The data habitually used&nbsp; comes from disingenuous sources who disingenuously analyze it, distort its meaning,&nbsp; and then disingenuously employ it for advocacy.&nbsp; Propaganda. &nbsp;</STRONG></EM></FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT color="#800080"><EM><STRONG>Truth is the Social Security system is doable.&nbsp; The most economical, humane and rational solution possible for dealing with people who can no longer 'work' and do for themselves. It ALL has to be paid for.&nbsp; How to do that 'fairly' has always been in question.&nbsp; The 'cap solution' proposed <U>can</U> be 'fair'.&nbsp; If not yet 'there', it can easily be fixed.&nbsp; The concept works.&nbsp; Enough of the 'yeah but' bs.&nbsp; It is getting old. &nbsp;&nbsp;</STRONG></EM></FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT color="#800080"><EM><STRONG>Not surprising, this same political sector views all of humanity to be 'selfish', just as they are.&nbsp; A 'cynic's' viewpoint influencing everything they speak, write and do.&nbsp; "I'm that way so you must be that way too."&nbsp; Absurd.&nbsp; That viewpoint completely ignores the fact that cooperation for mutual benefit is why mankind got to where it is and essential for civilization to exist.&nbsp; The United States is an experiment to prove that is a Truth and I, for one, intend that this Nation finish what has been started.&nbsp;</STRONG></EM></FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:21:39 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980816#M806898umbarch642018-03-12T18:21:39ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980863#M806919
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="5672481"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1891044"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR />In the long run the country and its people would be better off under the&nbsp;proposed plan. There is nothing wrong with a higher amount if they can afford it. SS is a retirement program all pay into, and all&nbsp;benefit from. There would be nothing wrong if someone like Warren B got nothing back for what he paid into it. The Country in the long run is better off and thus we all get a&nbsp;return even the people not drawing from it. Only people who really have no understanding of what SS was designed for would object. Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people. Even Trump at one time supported approaches like this, and his supporters are the biggest users of these type of programs (welfare). Sadly there are people who live among the his supporters who take advantage of them all of their lives. Look at WV.</BLOCKQUOTE><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><STRONG><EM>"<SPAN>Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people".</SPAN></EM></STRONG></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">Not so. But they would probably try to kill any changes that went opposed to FDR's concept and turns SS into a "wealth redistribution" system.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="5672481"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1891044"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR />In the long run the country and its people would be better off under the&nbsp;proposed plan. There is nothing wrong with a higher amount if they can afford it. SS is a retirement program all pay into, and all&nbsp;benefit from. There would be nothing wrong if someone like Warren B got nothing back for what he paid into it. The Country in the long run is better off and thus we all get a&nbsp;return even the people not drawing from it. Only people who really have no understanding of what SS was designed for would object. Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people. Even Trump at one time supported approaches like this, and his supporters are the biggest users of these type of programs (welfare). Sadly there are people who live among the his supporters who take advantage of them all of their lives. Look at WV.</BLOCKQUOTE><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><STRONG><EM>"<SPAN>Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people".</SPAN></EM></STRONG></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">Not so. But they would probably try to kill any changes that went opposed to FDR's concept and turns SS into a "wealth redistribution" system.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Not true, but typical of the far right. They are for anything that would hurt people, and sadly a lot of the far right would be hurt the most but they do not understand that as they are mostly uneducated, easy to lead, etc. per the experts. With Trump and the far right no wounder this country falls in to last place so quickly in everything. The US from the most admired, to the most you do not follow.</P>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 21:53:23 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980863#M806919john2582018-03-12T21:53:23ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980900#M806937
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole. &nbsp;I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous.&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">There are numerous charities available for individuals to do that. Why wait for it to become a government controlled action?</FONT></P>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 23:01:36 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980900#M806937rk91522018-03-12T23:01:36ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980907#M806942
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1671184"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P><FONT color="#800080"><STRONG><I><FONT color="#800080">S</FONT>ince Social Security began,&nbsp; the more extreme sectors of the Republican Party have pushed hard for eliminating the system entirely.&nbsp; It's welfare....the 'government' shouldn't be doing it.&nbsp; An absurd view from people employing an absurd ideology.&nbsp; The People establish government to promote the general welfare.&nbsp; Says so in an authoratative souce.</I></STRONG></FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT color="#800080"><EM><STRONG>This same political sector is s</STRONG></EM></FONT><FONT color="#800080"><EM><STRONG>ometimes truthful, most times not,&nbsp; The data habitually used&nbsp; comes from disingenuous sources who disingenuously analyze it, distort its meaning,&nbsp; and then disingenuously employ it for advocacy.&nbsp; Propaganda. &nbsp;</STRONG></EM></FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT color="#800080"><EM><STRONG>Truth is the Social Security system is doable.&nbsp; The most economical, humane and rational solution possible for dealing with people who can no longer 'work' and do for themselves. It ALL has to be paid for.&nbsp; How to do that 'fairly' has always been in question.&nbsp; The 'cap solution' proposed <U>can</U> be 'fair'.&nbsp; If not yet 'there', it can easily be fixed.&nbsp; The concept works.&nbsp; Enough of the 'yeah but' bs.&nbsp; It is getting old. &nbsp;&nbsp;</STRONG></EM></FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT color="#800080"><EM><STRONG>Not surprising, this same political sector views all of humanity to be 'selfish', just as they are.&nbsp; A 'cynic's' viewpoint influencing everything they speak, write and do.&nbsp; "I'm that way so you must be that way too."&nbsp; Absurd.&nbsp; That viewpoint completely ignores the fact that cooperation for mutual benefit is why mankind got to where it is and essential for civilization to exist.&nbsp; The United States is an experiment to prove that is a Truth and I, for one, intend that this Nation finish what has been started.&nbsp;</STRONG></EM></FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">Yes, Republicans have opposed and do oppose efforts to make people dependent on the government. But beyond that, FDR designed this as a forced saving plan, modern <SPAN class="mce-spellchecker-word">Dems</SPAN> are trying to turn it into a "wealth redistribution" scam.</FONT></P>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 23:08:08 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980907#M806942rk91522018-03-12T23:08:08ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980911#M806944
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1891044"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="5672481"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1891044"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR />In the long run the country and its people would be better off under the&nbsp;proposed plan. There is nothing wrong with a higher amount if they can afford it. SS is a retirement program all pay into, and all&nbsp;benefit from. There would be nothing wrong if someone like Warren B got nothing back for what he paid into it. The Country in the long run is better off and thus we all get a&nbsp;return even the people not drawing from it. Only people who really have no understanding of what SS was designed for would object. Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people. Even Trump at one time supported approaches like this, and his supporters are the biggest users of these type of programs (welfare). Sadly there are people who live among the his supporters who take advantage of them all of their lives. Look at WV.</BLOCKQUOTE><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><STRONG><EM>"<SPAN>Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people".</SPAN></EM></STRONG></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">Not so. But they would probably try to kill any changes that went opposed to FDR's concept and turns SS into a "wealth redistribution" system.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="5672481"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1891044"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR />In the long run the country and its people would be better off under the&nbsp;proposed plan. There is nothing wrong with a higher amount if they can afford it. SS is a retirement program all pay into, and all&nbsp;benefit from. There would be nothing wrong if someone like Warren B got nothing back for what he paid into it. The Country in the long run is better off and thus we all get a&nbsp;return even the people not drawing from it. Only people who really have no understanding of what SS was designed for would object. Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people. Even Trump at one time supported approaches like this, and his supporters are the biggest users of these type of programs (welfare). Sadly there are people who live among the his supporters who take advantage of them all of their lives. Look at WV.</BLOCKQUOTE><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><STRONG><EM>"<SPAN>Sadly these are on the far right and would kill every program that helped people".</SPAN></EM></STRONG></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">Not so. But they would probably try to kill any changes that went opposed to FDR's concept and turns SS into a "wealth redistribution" system.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Not true, but typical of the far right. They are for anything that would hurt people, and sadly a lot of the far right would be hurt the most but they do not understand that as they are mostly uneducated, easy to lead, etc. per the experts. With Trump and the far right no wounder this country falls in to last place so quickly in everything. The US from the most admired, to the most you do not follow.</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">Not true but typical of this poster - thinking that Conservatives like to hurt people. And the assumption that anyone not in agreement with him/her/it must be uneducated, easy to lead, etc. And, of course, absolutely nothing about the topic.</FONT></P>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 23:12:56 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980911#M806944rk91522018-03-12T23:12:56ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980944#M806968
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole. &nbsp;I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous.&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4">If I send you my address would you send me my social security check instead of it coming from the government?&nbsp; Could you include a more substantial cost of living increase than the government does?</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If you are living under the federal poverty level, I’d be happy to help you out. I feel great compassion for those who cannot support themselves.</P>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 01:53:42 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980944#M806968ManicProgressive2018-03-13T01:53:42ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980945#M806969
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="5672481"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole. &nbsp;I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous.&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">There are numerous charities available for individuals to do that. Why wait for it to become a government controlled action?</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Who’s waiting? I give time and money to charity. Don’t you?</P>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 01:57:51 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1980945#M806969ManicProgressive2018-03-13T01:57:51ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981001#M807012
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="5672481"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole. &nbsp;I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous.&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">There are numerous charities available for individuals to do that. Why wait for it to become a government controlled action?</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Who’s waiting? I give time and money to charity. Don’t you?</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">Then we are in agreement - help for our fellow man is an individual responsibility not to be designed as a government program.</FONT></P>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:59:16 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981001#M807012rk91522018-03-13T11:59:16ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981024#M807031
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="2">If you are living under the federal poverty level, I’d be happy to help you out. I feel great compassion for those who cannot support themselves.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>With several pensions from the military, civilian employment and social security hardly.&nbsp; But I'm not against even more income.&nbsp; But if you want to help the Social Security funds, you can always send your contributions to the government.</P>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:16:47 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981024#M807031TxGrandpa22018-03-13T13:16:47ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981200#M807172
<P>This makes no sense. SS is an organization that manages a lot of "stand-alone" programs each with its own funding.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>So which program is this talking about?</P>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:13:38 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981200#M807172alotofgrey2018-03-13T20:13:38ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981204#M807173
<P><SPAN>rk9152 says " Yes, Republicans have opposed and do oppose efforts to make people dependent on the government."</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>----------------------------------------</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Like (Mostly) Tax Payer Funded Government Pensions with COLA's ???</SPAN></P>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:23:50 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981204#M807173mandm842018-03-13T20:23:50ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981207#M807175
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1375301"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BR /><P><FONT size="2"><SPAN>Like (Mostly) Tax Payer Funded Government Pensions with COLA's ???</SPAN></FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4">So you resent someone being rewarded for service to the country?&nbsp; And COLA's?&nbsp; You believe a government employee shouldn't enjoy retirement the same as someone from private industry?&nbsp; You resent a retiree from sustaining a decent level of living?&nbsp; </FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">What else do you resent?&nbsp; From posts it is everything.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:28:48 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981207#M807175TxGrandpa22018-03-13T20:28:48ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981209#M807177
<P>Did I say resent ? Just call it what it is. A Perk that most dont enjoy !!!</P><P>Doesn't mean you worked any harder or are any smarter than those who don't have or lost their Pension, just that you were fortunate enough to have received a mostly tax payer funded Pension and Benefits that the Government still provides to you.&nbsp;</P>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:38:27 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981209#M807177mandm842018-03-13T20:38:27ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981213#M807181
<P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">$1,983Billion = Income BETWEEN $125,000 and $250,000</FONT></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 246Billion = +FICA collected with cap at $250,000</FONT></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">$&nbsp;&nbsp; 957Billion = Total revenue collected in 2017</FONT></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">$1,205Billion = new total collected for 2018</FONT></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">$&nbsp;&nbsp; 987Billiom = total outlay in 2018</FONT></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">$&nbsp;&nbsp; 218Billion = INCREASE in SSTF in 2019 vs projected $34B.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">So please GOPers, show the math where this will not keep SS solvent for the indefinate future?</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">NRAGOP will not increase the cap to save the system because their owners use their SS checks for greens fees and could care less if it disappeared.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">Since REpublicans will never allow SS to be fixed WITHOUT making the 99% work longer and collect less, the solution for saving SS is</FONT></P><P><STRONG><FONT size="4" color="#800000">GET RID OF THE NRAGOP IN 2018 AND EVER-AFTER!</FONT></STRONG></P>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:49:31 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981213#M807181Olderscout662018-03-13T20:49:31ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981216#M807184
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1375301"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P><FONT size="2">Did I say resent ? Just call it what it is. A Perk that most dont enjoy !!!</FONT></P><P><FONT size="2">Doesn't mean you worked any harder or are any smarter than those who don't have or lost their Pension, just that you were fortunate enough to have received a mostly tax payer funded Pension and Benefits that the Government still provides to you.&nbsp;</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4">So then you do resent it?&nbsp; This pension was promised before I enlisted.&nbsp; Otherwise I would have went elsewhere for a career.&nbsp; Further considering the conditions we had to go through to earn that retirement wasn't the same as a civilian would face.&nbsp; Besides I believe I made the smart choice at the beginning with an option to renew every four years.</FONT></P>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:58:47 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981216#M807184TxGrandpa22018-03-13T20:58:47ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981243#M807197
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="5672481"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="5672481"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole. &nbsp;I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous.&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">There are numerous charities available for individuals to do that. Why wait for it to become a government controlled action?</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Who’s waiting? I give time and money to charity. Don’t you?</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">Then we are in agreement - help for our fellow man is an individual responsibility not to be designed as a government program.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Nope. Logic fail. Try again.&nbsp;</P>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 22:15:11 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981243#M807197ManicProgressive2018-03-13T22:15:11ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981245#M807198
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="2">If you are living under the federal poverty level, I’d be happy to help you out. I feel great compassion for those who cannot support themselves.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>With several pensions from the military, civilian employment and social security hardly.&nbsp; But I'm not against even more income.&nbsp; But if you want to help the Social Security funds, you can always send your contributions to the government.</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So you are asking for a handout even if you don’t need one? I thought conservatives were against that.</P>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 22:16:24 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981245#M807198ManicProgressive2018-03-13T22:16:24ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981247#M807200
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1375301"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BR /><P><FONT size="2"><SPAN>Like (Mostly) Tax Payer Funded Government Pensions with COLA's ???</SPAN></FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4">So you resent someone being rewarded for service to the country?&nbsp; And COLA's?&nbsp; You believe a government employee shouldn't enjoy retirement the same as someone from private industry?&nbsp; You resent a retiree from sustaining a decent level of living?&nbsp; </FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">What else do you resent?&nbsp; From posts it is everything.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Derserve it or not, they are still dependent on taxpayers.&nbsp;</P>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 22:18:48 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981247#M807200ManicProgressive2018-03-13T22:18:48ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981254#M807201
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="2">So you are asking for a handout even if you don’t need one? I thought conservatives were against that.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The post was meant in jest.&nbsp; No, I have several industrial pensions besides from the miliary plus social security.&nbsp; I've actually retired from several different places.&nbsp; Actually also worked several places as a volunteer until having to quit because of medical reasons.&nbsp; Not necessarily a conservative nor liberal, but my own person.&nbsp;</P>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 22:37:12 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981254#M807201TxGrandpa22018-03-13T22:37:12ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981257#M807203
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Derserve it or not, they are still dependent on taxpayers.&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4">Yes, but we earn it.&nbsp; How would you like to be separated from your family for months at a time; miss your children's birthdays; serve several tours in a combat zone; all at pay scales lower than from industry?&nbsp; Ever been shot at and subject to hazardous conditions for a low pay scale?&nbsp; Signed a contract for x number of years in return for a retirement program.&nbsp; You don't do that in private industry?</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">It is besides the point who pays the pension except for cynical liberals.</FONT></P>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 22:42:19 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981257#M807203TxGrandpa22018-03-13T22:42:19ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981331#M807232
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1375301"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P><SPAN>rk9152 says " Yes, Republicans have opposed and do oppose efforts to make people dependent on the government."</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>----------------------------------------</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Like (Mostly) Tax Payer Funded Government Pensions with COLA's ???</SPAN></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Mand,</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>If an individual has a pension, government or otherwise, that individual had a pay-check <U>deduction</U> that funded all (100%) of it.&nbsp; NO EXCEPTIONS.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>That includes all SS pensions. If you think that aint true then consider this....If your SS pay-check deduction was nothing (0$),....at retirement your SS pension "check" will be nothing (0$).</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><U>Note</U>:&nbsp; The size of an individual's welfare check is based solely on need.&nbsp; Need has absolutley nothing to do with the size of an indivual's pension check, government or private.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 04:47:06 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981331#M807232alotofgrey2018-03-14T04:47:06ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981336#M807235
<P>&nbsp;Many Government Pensions were Non Contributory , which means Tax Payer Funded. More recent Tier's of Gov't Pensions added a 3% Worker Contribution. Even that 3% invested in the market , during the Gov't Workers career of 25-30 years , wouldn't gain enough to cover the cost of the Pension's that pay the retired worker 50% - 75% of their last salary for life with COLA"s. Just do the math.&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;Sure they worked and earned it , but don't forget to thank the Tax Payers who pitched in greatly. When those Tax Payers are struggling have their backs as well and stop calling them Socialist Liberals because they fight to Preserve Social Security by raising the Cap.</P>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 04:15:22 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981336#M807235mandm842018-03-14T04:15:22ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981342#M807238
<P><LI-USER uid="1375301"></LI-USER></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Pensions should be considered delayed compensation, whether under public, military or private employment. &nbsp;All employers who have them consider pensions to be part of the cost of employment. &nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>So instead of getting a bigger paycheck while working, the worker elects to have someone else make their money grow and thus defers part of their paycheck until they retire.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Basically Social Security contributions are the same, it is the W-2 employees money, including the employers match. &nbsp;The exception here is that the contributions are used almost primarily to pay the benefits of those who are already doing their drawing. &nbsp;And there are a whole lot of those drawers (beneficiaries) in comparison to the current contributors.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Better economic conditions of the country (more people working and making contributions) should help this off-balance a little, maybe a lot. &nbsp;But not enough to fix the financial off balance between what is going out and what is coming in.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 04:42:35 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981342#M807238GailL12018-03-14T04:42:35ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981343#M807239
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole. &nbsp;I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous.&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The payroll cap relates to the maximum benefit - that's the reason it is there.</P><P>If somebody every year pays in their contribution to maximum level of the payroll cap, they earn the maximum benefit.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><A href="https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html" target="_self">Social Security Admin. - Contributions and Benefit Base</A></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Raise the payroll cap, the maximum benefit also goes higher. &nbsp;Although additional "bend points" could be added to the benefit formula to decrease the benefit for higher income folks.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Sen. Murray's proposed legislation and also that of several other Democratic Legislators does NOT do that - they want to raise the cap tremendously but give NO benefit at all. &nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Personally, I do not think this would fly even if ALL the legislators and the President were Democrats.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 04:59:28 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981343#M807239GailL12018-03-14T04:59:28ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981505#M807350
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Derserve it or not, they are still dependent on taxpayers.&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4">Yes, but we earn it.&nbsp; How would you like to be separated from your family for months at a time; miss your children's birthdays; serve several tours in a combat zone; all at pay scales lower than from industry?&nbsp; Ever been shot at and subject to hazardous conditions for a low pay scale?&nbsp; Signed a contract for x number of years in return for a retirement program.&nbsp; You don't do that in private industry?</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">It is besides the point who pays the pension except for cynical liberals.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Again, it doesn’t matter. They are dependent on tax payers and legislators. That&nbsp;pension could go away with the swoop of a pen.</P>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:52:51 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981505#M807350ManicProgressive2018-03-14T16:52:51ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981512#M807356
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="2">Again, it doesn’t matter. They are dependent on tax payers and legislators. That&nbsp;pension could go away with the swoop of a pen.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>To the contrary, they need to have the authorization of Congress.&nbsp; And imagine every military retirees are voters.&nbsp; Also you are forgetting we EARNED those benefits and they are not given gratiously.&nbsp; They have been modified for future retirees to be partly contributory.&nbsp; But present recepients are grandfathered.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>But is appears that you are jealous that government workers are as entitled to retirement benefits as those working in private industry.&nbsp;</P>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:12:10 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981512#M807356TxGrandpa22018-03-14T17:12:10ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981578#M807411
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="2">Again, it doesn’t matter. They are dependent on tax payers and legislators. That&nbsp;pension could go away with the swoop of a pen.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>To the contrary, they need to have the authorization of Congress.&nbsp; And imagine every military retirees are voters.&nbsp; Also you are forgetting we EARNED those benefits and they are not given gratiously.&nbsp; They have been modified for future retirees to be partly contributory.&nbsp; But present recepients are grandfathered.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>But is appears that you are jealous that government workers are as entitled to retirement benefits as those working in private industry.&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That’s exactly my point. Congress are legislators. They can change the law right from under your feet. While the risk is low, it is real. Do you really trust Congress to do what’s in the public good?</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Also, not jealous. I have a government pension, too. I’m just being realistic. Public pensions are worth more than double that of private pensions, and most government employees have pensions. In the private sector, only about 15% of workers do. The rest, if they have anything at all, have defined contribution plans like 401ks. That alone causes great animosity among taxpayers who get upset that their tax dollar is funding a much richer public sector benefit than they themselves will ever get. &nbsp; So if there is ever a real battle over defunding public pensions, we pensioners are outnumbered. &nbsp;And perhaps outvoted. &nbsp;</P>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:03:22 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981578#M807411ManicProgressive2018-03-14T20:03:22ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981586#M807419
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Public pensions are worth more than double that of private pensions, and most government employees have pensions.&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have to disagree.&nbsp; My younger brother is a retired IT professional and his retirement is about the same as I am drawing in six months.&nbsp; As far as pensions can be withdrawn from under our feet, any lawmaker would be crazy to suggest that.&nbsp; Do you realize how many retirees would vote them out in a New York minute?&nbsp; No, the way they approach it is to lower benefits for future retirees like the military did last year.&nbsp; They lowered military retirement by 10% for future retirees and put them on a Thrift Savings Program, but grandfathered those on active duty at the end of 2017.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>They actually did recruits a favor because if they get out at any time before retirement, they would withdraw their savings.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>So where do you get the idea that taxpayers are upset over government pensions?&nbsp;</P>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:14:33 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981586#M807419TxGrandpa22018-03-14T20:14:33ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981978#M807716
<P>If you're fortunate enough to have a Public Pension , congratulations , but don't label those fighting to preserve and strengthen Social Security and Medicare - Socialist Liberal's.</P><P>We are all in this together thanks to all of our Taxpayer's.</P>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:26:33 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981978#M807716mandm842018-03-15T18:26:33ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981984#M807722
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1375301"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="2">If you're fortunate enough to have a Public Pension , congratulations , but don't label those fighting to preserve and strengthen Social Security and Medicare - Socialist Liberal's.</FONT></P><P><FONT size="2">We are all in this together thanks to all of our Taxpayer's.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4">One isn't necessarily fortunate to have a pension of any sort.&nbsp; One works for it.&nbsp; As for as Social Security one has to pay into it via FICA taxes.&nbsp; With Medicare one has to pay monthly premiums for Part B coverage especially and one pays medicare taxes also.&nbsp;</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:43:48 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981984#M807722TxGrandpa22018-03-15T18:43:48ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981992#M807730
<P><SPAN>Tex says "One isn't necessarily fortunate to have a pension of any sort.&nbsp; One works for it."</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>--------------------------------</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Whatever you say Tex that makes you feel better. I know how fortunate I am !!!</SPAN></P>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:03:17 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981992#M807730mandm842018-03-15T19:03:17ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981995#M807733
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1375301"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P><SPAN>Tex says "One isn't necessarily fortunate to have a pension of any sort.&nbsp; One works for it."</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>--------------------------------</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Whatever you say Tex that makes you feel better. I know how fortunate I am !!!</SPAN></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4">Then why do you keep complaining about these things?&nbsp; I'm just enjoying what I planned for since I graduated from high school at age 17.&nbsp; I haven't complained about unfortunate situations, even when we lost everything in Harvey's flood.&nbsp; We rebuilt even better than ever mostly with our own funds.</FONT></P>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:08:29 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1981995#M807733TxGrandpa22018-03-15T19:08:29ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982017#M807748
<P>Because of the poster's who are fortunate enough to have a Gov't Pension, but attack our Senior's and Disabled when they fight to preserve and strengthen Social Security and Medicare by calling them " Socialists or Takers " because they suggest raising the FICA Cap , etc.</P><P>Those same Senior's and Disabled worked hard and paid their share of Taxes while able to , that helped support the Gov't Pensions. We are all in this together and I call it Gratitude and having each other's backs !</P>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:29:42 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982017#M807748mandm842018-03-15T20:29:42ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982028#M807757
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1375301"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;Gov't Pension</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4">It is apparent that you expect those working for the government to not have any deferred compensation such as retirement plans.&nbsp; If you have such a problem with those drawing pensions, then why didn't you better plan when entering the work force?</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">It was the retirement plan that enticed me to make the military career,&nbsp; even though it meant being subject to&nbsp; hazardous assignments, being separated from family for long periods of time, etc.&nbsp; You had the same option as I did.&nbsp; There are those who opted for higher compensation and benefits with industry rather than government service.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">You might consider that if not for dedicated individuals who has served in government over the years there would be no continuity to pass on experienced employees.&nbsp; </FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">I detect jealously towards those who made a career in government and are now enjoying the fruits of their service.&nbsp; I have no regret.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:07:44 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982028#M807757TxGrandpa22018-03-15T21:07:44ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982054#M807776
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1375301"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>&nbsp;. . . . &nbsp;to preserve and strengthen Social Security and Medicare by calling them " Socialists or Takers " because they suggest raising the FICA Cap , etc.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Those same Senior's and Disabled worked hard and paid their share of Taxes while able to . . . . We are all in this together and I call it Gratitude and having each other's backs !</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That it's NOT what we are saying -</P><P>Raise the cap but give a benefit to those who are paying more into the system.</P><P>Add more bend points if necessary to keep the maximum benefit from going through the roof - but give a benefit for those paying in more.</P><P>That is the way the program was designed to work - those who pay into the system get a benefit.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Do you not think that it should be done that way ?</P><P>If people have to pay into the program yet receive no benefit from their massive contribution, the program becomes another welfare program, not an insurance program.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:11:30 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982054#M807776GailL12018-03-15T23:11:30ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982103#M807815
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Public pensions are worth more than double that of private pensions, and most government employees have pensions.&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have to disagree.&nbsp; My younger brother is a retired IT professional and his retirement is about the same as I am drawing in six months.&nbsp; As far as pensions can be withdrawn from under our feet, any lawmaker would be crazy to suggest that.&nbsp; Do you realize how many retirees would vote them out in a New York minute?&nbsp; No, the way they approach it is to lower benefits for future retirees like the military did last year.&nbsp; They lowered military retirement by 10% for future retirees and put them on a Thrift Savings Program, but grandfathered those on active duty at the end of 2017.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>They actually did recruits a favor because if they get out at any time before retirement, they would withdraw their savings.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>So where do you get the idea that taxpayers are upset over government pensions?&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The data is out there.&nbsp; Anecdotal experience is way too small to be representative.&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Public pensions are more valuable than private pensions. Public pensions for law enforcement, for example, only require 20 years of service rather than the typical 30 years of service.&nbsp; Public pensions have much richer spousal and dependent benefits.&nbsp;&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:57:12 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982103#M807815ManicProgressive2018-03-16T00:57:12ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982106#M807818
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1375301"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="2">If you're fortunate enough to have a Public Pension , congratulations , but don't label those fighting to preserve and strengthen Social Security and Medicare - Socialist Liberal's.</FONT></P><P><FONT size="2">We are all in this together thanks to all of our Taxpayer's.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4">One isn't necessarily fortunate to have a pension of any sort.&nbsp; One works for it.&nbsp; As for as Social Security one has to pay into it via FICA taxes.&nbsp; With Medicare one has to pay monthly premiums for Part B coverage especially and one pays medicare taxes also.&nbsp;</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You were fortunate enough to be able to get a job that offers a pension.&nbsp; Not everyone is.&nbsp; And not everyone can stay at one job long enough to earn a pension.&nbsp; &nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>You can be both fortunate and hard working.&nbsp; But there are many people out there who are hard working and NOT fortunate.</P>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:58:41 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982106#M807818ManicProgressive2018-03-16T00:58:41ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982110#M807821
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="300286"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1375301"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>&nbsp;. . . . &nbsp;to preserve and strengthen Social Security and Medicare by calling them " Socialists or Takers " because they suggest raising the FICA Cap , etc.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Those same Senior's and Disabled worked hard and paid their share of Taxes while able to . . . . We are all in this together and I call it Gratitude and having each other's backs !</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That it's NOT what we are saying -</P><P>Raise the cap but give a benefit to those who are paying more into the system.</P><P>Add more bend points if necessary to keep the maximum benefit from going through the roof - but give a benefit for those paying in more.</P><P>That is the way the program was designed to work - those who pay into the system get a benefit.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Do you not think that it should be done that way ?</P><P>If people have to pay into the program yet receive no benefit from their massive contribution, <STRONG>the program becomes another welfare program, not an insurance program</STRONG>.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Why does that matter so much?&nbsp; What's wrong with its being a little bit of both?&nbsp; If modifcation keeps more seniors out of poverty, that's a good thing.</P>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 01:02:02 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982110#M807821ManicProgressive2018-03-16T01:02:02ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982119#M807829
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<P class="1521162125712">&nbsp;</P>&nbsp;<P><FONT size="2">Public pensions are more valuable than private pensions. Public pensions for law enforcement, for example, only require 20 years of service rather than the typical 30 years of service.&nbsp; Public pensions have much richer spousal and dependent benefits.&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4">But of course military and law enforcement careers are by nature more hazardous than most industrial jobs where safety is paramount.&nbsp; While they might encourage safety, they do put one in performing hazard duties.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">I'm not ashamed of how I earned my pension from the government as those of us earned them honorably.&nbsp; I didn't ask any to do so in my place, even volunteering from the beginning and for duty in combat areas.&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">Is it that liberals are suggesting that one not serve in the military or in law enforcement?&nbsp; It appears so, either that or they are jealous that we made a deal, keeping our part of the bargain and the government is keeping theirs.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 01:14:04 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982119#M807829TxGrandpa22018-03-16T01:14:04ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982124#M807831
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<P class="1521162125712">&nbsp;</P>&nbsp;<P><FONT size="2">Public pensions are more valuable than private pensions. Public pensions for law enforcement, for example, only require 20 years of service rather than the typical 30 years of service.&nbsp; Public pensions have much richer spousal and dependent benefits.&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4">But of course military and law enforcement careers are by nature more hazardous than most industrial jobs where safety is paramount.&nbsp; While they might encourage safety, they do put one in performing hazard duties.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">I'm not ashamed of how I earned my pension from the government as those of us earned them honorably.&nbsp; I didn't ask any to do so in my place, even volunteering from the beginning and for duty in combat areas.&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">Is it that liberals are suggesting that one not serve in the military or in law enforcement?&nbsp; It appears so, either that or they are jealous that we made a deal, keeping our part of the bargain and the government is keeping theirs.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Nobody is expecting you to be ashamed of anything.&nbsp; &nbsp;Or that people shouldn't serve in law enforcement.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Nobody is jealous.&nbsp; &nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>What liberals would like is that people understand that we are all interdependent.&nbsp; Nobody stands alone in this country.&nbsp; &nbsp;You can't.&nbsp; That ended when we switched to a pay check-driven, urban nation.&nbsp; &nbsp;And since we are all interdependent, have a little empathy for those who haven't fared as well as you have.&nbsp;</P>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 01:21:13 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982124#M807831ManicProgressive2018-03-16T01:21:13ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982142#M807848
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<P class="1521162125712">&nbsp;</P>&nbsp;<P><FONT size="2">Public pensions are more valuable than private pensions. Public pensions for law enforcement, for example, only require 20 years of service rather than the typical 30 years of service.&nbsp; Public pensions have much richer spousal and dependent benefits.&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4">But of course military and law enforcement careers are by nature more hazardous than most industrial jobs where safety is paramount.&nbsp; While they might encourage safety, they do put one in performing hazard duties.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">I'm not ashamed of how I earned my pension from the government as those of us earned them honorably.&nbsp; I didn't ask any to do so in my place, even volunteering from the beginning and for duty in combat areas.&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">Is it that liberals are suggesting that one not serve in the military or in law enforcement?&nbsp; It appears so, either that or they are jealous that we made a deal, keeping our part of the bargain and the government is keeping theirs.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT color="#008000"><STRONG><FONT size="4">The statistics - numbers - backed by facts say otherwise.</FONT></STRONG></FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><STRONG><FONT size="4"><A href="https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/15/dying-for-a-paycheck-these-jobs-are-more-dangerous.aspx" target="_blank">Dying for a Paycheck: These Jobs Are More Dangerous Than Military Service</A>&nbsp;</FONT></STRONG></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><STRONG><FONT size="4"><A href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/2018/01/09/workplace-fatalities-25-most-dangerous-jobs-america/1002500001/" target="_blank">The 25 most dangerous jobs in America</A> </FONT></STRONG></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 02:49:06 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982142#M807848alferdpacker2018-03-16T02:49:06ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982158#M807858
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<P class="1521162125712">&nbsp;</P>&nbsp;<P><FONT size="2">Public pensions are more valuable than private pensions. Public pensions for law enforcement, for example, only require 20 years of service rather than the typical 30 years of service.&nbsp; Public pensions have much richer spousal and dependent benefits.&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4">But of course military and law enforcement careers are by nature more hazardous than most industrial jobs where safety is paramount.&nbsp; While they might encourage safety, they do put one in performing hazard duties.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">I'm not ashamed of how I earned my pension from the government as those of us earned them honorably.&nbsp; I didn't ask any to do so in my place, even volunteering from the beginning and for duty in combat areas.&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">Is it that liberals are suggesting that one not serve in the military or in law enforcement?&nbsp; It appears so, either that or they are jealous that we made a deal, keeping our part of the bargain and the government is keeping theirs.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Why do you say liberals&nbsp; say one should not serve in the Armed Forces. You call me a liberal and I served. I resent your stupid implication. As people tell their children: Grow up. By the way the one you should be directing your comment at is Trump. He dodged the draft and never served in the Armed Forces.</P>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 03:36:58 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982158#M807858john2582018-03-16T03:36:58ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982231#M807902
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:</BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><P>Why does that matter so much?&nbsp; What's wrong with its being a little bit of both?&nbsp; If modifcation keeps more seniors out of poverty, that's a good thing.</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It already is a "little bit of both" due to the computation of the benefit and where the bend points line up. &nbsp;It is already tilted to those with lower lifetime earnings.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Imthink you and others here should figure up what a person's annual contribution would be at even today's rates for income of $ 250,000 or $ 400,000 per year and don't forget to add in the matched by employer. &nbsp;Yes, paying this annually for their working career but NOT getting a benefit would definitely hurt their bottom line and standard of living.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Now what would happen if this same high earner became disabled in their 40's or 50's - still no added benefit for their high contributions.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Who is to say how much is too much? &nbsp;Higher income retirees already pay tax on their SS benefit - which I might add goes back into the Trust Fund to help keep it afloat - this, in addition to the bend point benefit computation, helps out those who are low income seniors.</P><P>&nbsp;</P>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:45:04 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982231#M807902GailL12018-03-16T12:45:04ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982277#M807936
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1375301"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>Did I say resent ? Just call it what it is. A Perk that most dont enjoy !!!</P><P>Doesn't mean you worked any harder or are any smarter than those who don't have or lost their Pension, just that you were fortunate enough to have received a mostly tax payer funded Pension and Benefits that the Government still provides to you.&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">Not quite - Government employees retiring under Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) pensions are paid from a fund virtually identical to the SS Trust Fund. They contributed 7% of their gross income with no tax deduction (prior to the 1990's) and their employer made an equal contribution. The fund earns 4% on the special Treasury Bonds it buys with those contributions, and the average federal worker retiring after 40 years will have an imputed retirement account of well over $1,000,000. They can provide a continued annuity for their spouse if they "pre-decease", but even with that many never recover the full value of their retirement account (including interest). Folks under the FERS system have a different arrangement.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">If private employers were required to transfer their pension funds to a Government regulated "Trust" account similar to CSRS, they could not take the pension fund and use it for Executive bonuses and everyone, not just the bosses,&nbsp; would be able to retire comfortably.</FONT></P>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:07:04 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982277#M807936Olderscout662018-03-16T14:07:04ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982281#M807940
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="300286"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:</BLOCKQUOTE><P><A href="https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html" target="_self">Social Security Admin. - Contributions and Benefit Base</A></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Raise the payroll cap, the maximum benefit also goes higher. &nbsp;Although additional "bend points" could be added to the benefit formula to decrease the benefit for higher income folks. <STRONG><FONT size="4" color="#800000">But the revenue increases faster than the benefits IF you enact the change immediately instead of "phasing it in" even without the additional "bend" points. Here's a short version of why: The contribution goes up on ALL the income between $128 and $250K, but the benefit for someone retiring next year only goes up on 1/30th of the highercap because the benefit is an AVERAGE of 30 years pay, and that AVERAGE is "capped" for the amount applicable in EACH YEAR. Check out the "conversion factors" SS PUBLISHES - that's what is being"converted".</FONT></STRONG></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Sen. Murray's proposed legislation and also that of several other Democratic Legislators does NOT do that - they want to raise the cap tremendously but give NO benefit at all. &nbsp;<FONT size="4" color="#800000"><STRONG>Only necessary if the new cap is phased in.<BR /></STRONG></FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Personally, I do not think this would fly even if ALL the legislators and the President were Democrats. <FONT size="4" color="#800000"><STRONG>We know for CERTAIN it will never happen with NRAGOP in charge - let's try it with Dems in charge of everything and make sure they know their jobs depend on it.</STRONG></FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>&nbsp;</P>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:16:11 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982281#M807940Olderscout662018-03-16T14:16:11ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982358#M807992
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><HR /><BR />And since we are all interdependent, have a little empathy for those who haven't fared as well as you have.&nbsp;<HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4">I have no&nbsp;empathy for those who complain about the success of others while they sit around and complain.&nbsp; Over the years I've seen too many blame others rather than themselves for their failures. </FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">I set my course in my teens with planning a career that would offer security and a good retirement.&nbsp; And I worked hard for that goal, not sitting around waiting for it to be handed to me.&nbsp; For the past several decades I've been enjoying that goal.</FONT></P>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:15:48 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982358#M807992TxGrandpa22018-03-16T16:15:48ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982369#M808001
<P>Scout , when I first entered the workforce after college , many State Gov't Pensions were Non Contributory , as I explored job openings. I have friends who entered the Federal System and contributed 3% towards their Pensions. I'm sure it varies greatly , but regardless I consider it a fortunate benefit to say the least.</P>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:26:51 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982369#M808001mandm842018-03-16T16:26:51ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982495#M808100
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1375301"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>Scout , when I first entered the workforce after college , many State Gov't Pensions were Non Contributory , as I explored job openings. I have friends who entered the Federal System and contributed 3% towards their Pensions. I'm sure it varies greatly , but regardless I consider it a fortunate benefit to say the least.</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">What must be remembered is that benefits are "a cost of doing business". Public or private, an employer has a bottom line to pay an employee. That amount is divide up between salary and benefits. So, someone with a lesser retirement benefit probably got a larger salary and vice-versa.</FONT></P>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 20:41:45 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982495#M808100rk91522018-03-16T20:41:45ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982647#M808191
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="300286"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:</BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE><P>Why does that matter so much?&nbsp; What's wrong with its being a little bit of both?&nbsp; If modifcation keeps more seniors out of poverty, that's a good thing.</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It already is a "little bit of both" due to the computation of the benefit and where the bend points line up. &nbsp;It is already tilted to those with lower lifetime earnings.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Imthink you and others here should figure up what a person's annual contribution would be at even today's rates for income of $ 250,000 or $ 400,000 per year and don't forget to add in the matched by employer. &nbsp;Yes, paying this annually for their working career but NOT getting a benefit would definitely hurt their bottom line and standard of living.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Now what would happen if this same high earner became disabled in their 40's or 50's - still no added benefit for their high contributions.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Who is to say how much is too much? &nbsp;Higher income retirees already pay tax on their SS benefit - which I might add goes back into the Trust Fund to help keep it afloat - this, in addition to the bend point benefit computation, helps out those who are low income seniors.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Social Security is meant to keep people out of poverty. Not to maintain any particular standard of living on top of that. &nbsp; High earners who care about maintaining a certain standard of living save for their retirement outside of Social Security.&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>I mean, it’s insurance. It’s not an annuity or pension. If you die at 62, you are SOL.&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P>Sat, 17 Mar 2018 02:43:07 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982647#M808191ManicProgressive2018-03-17T02:43:07ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982648#M808192
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><HR /><BR />And since we are all interdependent, have a little empathy for those who haven't fared as well as you have.&nbsp;<HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4"><STRONG>I have no&nbsp;empathy</STRONG> for those who complain about the success of others while they sit around and complain.&nbsp; Over the years I've seen too many blame others rather than themselves for their failures. </FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4">I set my course in my teens with planning a career that would offer security and a good retirement.&nbsp; And I worked hard for that goal, not sitting around waiting for it to be handed to me.&nbsp; For the past several decades I've been enjoying that goal.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I know you don’t. And that makes me feel sorry for you.</P>Sat, 17 Mar 2018 02:44:46 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982648#M808192ManicProgressive2018-03-17T02:44:46ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982655#M808197
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="2">Again, it doesn’t matter. They are dependent on tax payers and legislators. That&nbsp;pension could go away with the swoop of a pen.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>To the contrary, they need to have the authorization of Congress.&nbsp; And imagine every military retirees are voters.&nbsp; Also you are forgetting we EARNED those benefits and they are not given gratiously.&nbsp; They have been modified for future retirees to be partly contributory.&nbsp; But present recepients are grandfathered.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>But is appears that you are jealous that government workers are as entitled to retirement benefits as those working in private industry.&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That’s exactly my point. Congress are legislators. They can change the law right from under your feet. While the risk is low, it is real. Do you really trust Congress to do what’s in the public good?</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Also, not jealous. I have a government pension, too. I’m just being realistic. Public pensions are worth more than double that of private pensions, and most government employees have pensions. In the private sector, only about 15% of workers do. The rest, if they have anything at all, have defined contribution plans like 401ks. That alone causes great animosity among taxpayers who get upset that their tax dollar is funding a much richer public sector benefit than they themselves will ever get. &nbsp; So if there is ever a real battle over defunding public pensions, we pensioners are outnumbered. &nbsp;And perhaps outvoted. &nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">For several generations, Corporate pensions for their workers far exceeded anything the Government offered and the vast majority of employees had defined benefit pensions . Then the Reagan Taxscam allowed the Oligarchs dividing the corporate pie to keep all they gave themselves instead of just handing it over to the Government come income tax time, and keep it is what they did.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">The result has been stagant worker wages that had been growing faster than executive compensation for 40 years, narrowing the gap between rich and poor. </FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">Now to make the workers they raped feel better, the GOPerLords have sent word to their dupes that Government Workers pensions are "unfair" and need to be slashed so those snooty bureaucrats (about 80% of whom have college degrees) should make less in retirement that Joe Schmuck the ragman. </FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">Never mind that the Government employees contributed a great deal more toward their retirement, scum like Trump and his ilk know nothing makes stupid people feel better about themselves than making someone else worse off. </FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">And now the wingers have the audacity to claim it's JEALOUSY that drives people to want the Reagan taxscam repealed so the very rich go back to supporting the Government and the middle class ca ngrow again, but only "fair play" when they argue for taking away wthe pensions government workers have built for themselves, based on agreements renewed wit htheir employer every year for the 30- 40 years they worked.</FONT></P>Sat, 17 Mar 2018 03:00:05 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982655#M808197Olderscout662018-03-17T03:00:05ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982659#M808201
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1375301"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P>Scout , when I first entered the workforce after college , many State Gov't Pensions were Non Contributory , as I explored job openings. I have friends who entered the Federal System and contributed 3% towards their Pensions. I'm sure it varies greatly , but regardless I consider it a fortunate benefit to say the least.</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Either you're very young and began working after 1974 or your friends lied to you. The contribution to Federal Retirement under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) has been 7% (matched by their employer) since 1969, and it was 3.5% back in 1942. No variation, and until the 1990's the employee contribution was taxed as regular income. The new workers under FERS contribute to their retirement a minimum of 1.3%,&nbsp; pay FICA and have a Thrift Savings Plan to invest in stocks and bonds with some employer matching contributions.</P><P>NOW the CSRS must look really good to all those who believed their Corporate employers 40 years ago when they began their careers, but then Reagan allowed the Oligarchs to keep all the raises they gave&nbsp;themselves and there was nothing for the workers OR the retirees.</P><P>Government retirement didn't suddenly get better, Republicans got elected and&nbsp;legislated ways for the Corporations to make their <EM>employee's</EM> retirement crapola,&nbsp; so the Corporate Oligarchs did just that.</P><P>Now instead of demanding Corporations treat their workers fairly, the GOPerLords have their dupes ranting about how to take away what the Government workers built for themselves with 14% of what COULD have been their income for their working lives.</P><P>The average contribution, including interest, for a Fed retiring under CSRS after 40 YEARS is over $1,000,000 and it is highly unlikely they will live long enough to exhaust the annuity&nbsp;they built, which is why the&nbsp;Civil Service Retirement Fund is just fine while SS has got to be fixed or the benefits will drop by 40%, and eventually dwindle to virtually nothing, all because Republicans refuse to raise the cap on contributions.</P>Sat, 17 Mar 2018 03:24:53 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982659#M808201Olderscout662018-03-17T03:24:53ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982745#M808265
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="639942"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="2">Again, it doesn’t matter. They are dependent on tax payers and legislators. That&nbsp;pension could go away with the swoop of a pen.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>To the contrary, they need to have the authorization of Congress.&nbsp; And imagine every military retirees are voters.&nbsp; Also you are forgetting we EARNED those benefits and they are not given gratiously.&nbsp; They have been modified for future retirees to be partly contributory.&nbsp; But present recepients are grandfathered.</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>But is appears that you are jealous that government workers are as entitled to retirement benefits as those working in private industry.&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That’s exactly my point. Congress are legislators. They can change the law right from under your feet. While the risk is low, it is real. Do you really trust Congress to do what’s in the public good?</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>Also, not jealous. I have a government pension, too. I’m just being realistic. Public pensions are worth more than double that of private pensions, and most government employees have pensions. In the private sector, only about 15% of workers do. The rest, if they have anything at all, have defined contribution plans like 401ks. That alone causes great animosity among taxpayers who get upset that their tax dollar is funding a much richer public sector benefit than they themselves will ever get. &nbsp; So if there is ever a real battle over defunding public pensions, we pensioners are outnumbered. &nbsp;And perhaps outvoted. &nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">For several generations, Corporate pensions for their workers far exceeded anything the Government offered and the vast majority of employees had defined benefit pensions . Then the Reagan Taxscam allowed the Oligarchs dividing the corporate pie to keep all they gave themselves instead of just handing it over to the Government come income tax time, and keep it is what they did.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">The result has been stagant worker wages that had been growing faster than executive compensation for 40 years, narrowing the gap between rich and poor. </FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">Now to make the workers they raped feel better, the GOPerLords have sent word to their dupes that Government Workers pensions are "unfair" and need to be slashed so those snooty bureaucrats (about 80% of whom have college degrees) should make less in retirement that Joe Schmuck the ragman. </FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">Never mind that the Government employees contributed a great deal more toward their retirement, scum like Trump and his ilk know nothing makes stupid people feel better about themselves than making someone else worse off. </FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">And now the wingers have the audacity to claim it's JEALOUSY that drives people to want the Reagan taxscam repealed so the very rich go back to supporting the Government and the middle class ca ngrow again, but only "fair play" when they argue for taking away wthe pensions government workers have built for themselves, based on agreements renewed wit htheir employer every year for the 30- 40 years they worked.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">The usual nonsense about the Reagan tax cuts. It's not all that complex, benefits are and have always been a part of the total compensation package - and that is the point. More benefits, less salary; more salary, less benefits.</FONT></P>Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:56:33 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982745#M808265rk91522018-03-17T12:56:33ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982783#M808289
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><HR /><BR />And since we are all interdependent, have a little empathy for those who haven't fared as well as you have.&nbsp;<HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="2"><STRONG>I have no&nbsp;empathy</STRONG> for those who complain about the success of others while they sit around and complain.&nbsp; Over the years I've seen too many blame others rather than themselves for their failures. </FONT></P><P><FONT size="2">&nbsp;</FONT></P><P><FONT size="2">I set my course in my teens with planning a career that would offer security and a good retirement.&nbsp; And I worked hard for that goal, not sitting around waiting for it to be handed to me.&nbsp; For the past several decades I've been enjoying that goal.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="2">I know you don’t. And that makes me feel sorry for you.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><STRONG>Aesop's&nbsp; The Ant and the Grasshopper</STRONG></P><P><A href="http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/AntGra.shtml" target="_self">http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/AntGra.shtml</A></P>Sat, 17 Mar 2018 14:54:23 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982783#M808289TxGrandpa22018-03-17T14:54:23ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982786#M808292
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="15006157"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><HR /><BR />And since we are all interdependent, have a little empathy for those who haven't fared as well as you have.&nbsp;<HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="2"><STRONG>I have no&nbsp;empathy</STRONG> for those who complain about the success of others while they sit around and complain.&nbsp; Over the years I've seen too many blame others rather than themselves for their failures. </FONT></P><P><FONT size="2">&nbsp;</FONT></P><P><FONT size="2">I set my course in my teens with planning a career that would offer security and a good retirement.&nbsp; And I worked hard for that goal, not sitting around waiting for it to be handed to me.&nbsp; For the past several decades I've been enjoying that goal.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="2">I know you don’t. And that makes me feel sorry for you.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><STRONG>Aesop's&nbsp; The Ant and the Grasshopper</STRONG></P><P><A href="http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/AntGra.shtml" target="_self">http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/AntGra.shtml</A></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><STRONG><FONT size="4" color="#008000">In one of your earlier posts you had posted that you had no sympathy for - now you post that you feel sorry for...</FONT></STRONG></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><STRONG><FONT size="4" color="#008000">Which is the truth and which is the lie?</FONT></STRONG></P><P>&nbsp;</P>Sat, 17 Mar 2018 15:13:37 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982786#M808292alferdpacker2018-03-17T15:13:37ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982792#M808296
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="579212"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="2">"I know you don’t. And that makes me feel sorry for you."</FONT></P><HR /><P><FONT size="2">&nbsp;</FONT></P><P><FONT size="2">&nbsp;</FONT></P><P><FONT size="2"><STRONG>Aesop's&nbsp; The Ant and the Grasshopper</STRONG></FONT></P><P><FONT size="2"><A href="http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/AntGra.shtml" target="_self">http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/AntGra.shtml</A></FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="2"><STRONG><FONT color="#008000">In one of your earlier posts you had posted that you had no sympathy for - now you post that you feel sorry for...</FONT></STRONG></FONT></P><P><FONT size="2">&nbsp;</FONT></P><P><FONT size="2"><STRONG><FONT color="#008000">Which is the truth and which is the lie?</FONT></STRONG></FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Please read the post more carefully and you would find that was what was posted to me by <FONT color="#000000"><SPAN class="UserName lia-user-name lia-user-rank-Valued-Social-Butterfly"><SPAN class="lia-link-navigation lia-page-link lia-link-disabled lia-user-name-link"><SPAN class="">TemperMental67.&nbsp; </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P>Sat, 17 Mar 2018 15:38:35 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982792#M808296TxGrandpa22018-03-17T15:38:35ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982800#M808302
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="539403"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="579212"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="2">"I know you don’t. And that makes me feel sorry for you."</FONT></P><HR /><P><FONT size="2">&nbsp;</FONT></P><P><FONT size="2">&nbsp;</FONT></P><P><FONT size="2"><STRONG>Aesop's&nbsp; The Ant and the Grasshopper</STRONG></FONT></P><P><FONT size="2"><A href="http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/AntGra.shtml" target="_self">http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/AntGra.shtml</A></FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="2"><STRONG><FONT color="#008000">In one of your earlier posts you had posted that you had no sympathy for - now you post that you feel sorry for...</FONT></STRONG></FONT></P><P><FONT size="2">&nbsp;</FONT></P><P><FONT size="2"><STRONG><FONT color="#008000">Which is the truth and which is the lie?</FONT></STRONG></FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Please read the post more carefully and you would find that was what was posted to me by <FONT color="#000000"><SPAN class="UserName lia-user-name lia-user-rank-Valued-Social-Butterfly"><SPAN class="lia-link-navigation lia-page-link lia-link-disabled lia-user-name-link"><SPAN class="">TemperMental67.&nbsp; </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><STRONG><FONT size="4" color="#008000">If what TemperMental67 posted was/is not true - can you post valid empirical proof that it's untrue?</FONT></STRONG></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><STRONG><FONT size="4" color="#008000">We await, with bated breath, link(s) to proof refuting the allegation...</FONT></STRONG></P><P>&nbsp;</P>Sat, 17 Mar 2018 15:52:25 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982800#M808302alferdpacker2018-03-17T15:52:25ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982857#M808348
<P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">One more time for the mathematically challenged:</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">$1,983Billion = Income BETWEEN $125,000 and $250,000</FONT></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 246Billion = +FICA collected with cap at $250,000</FONT></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">$&nbsp;&nbsp; 957Billion = Total revenue collected in 2017</FONT></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">$1,205Billion = new total collected for 2018</FONT></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">$&nbsp;&nbsp; 987Billiom = total outlay in 2018</FONT></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">$&nbsp;&nbsp;<STRONG> 218Billion</STRONG> = INCREASE in SSTF in 2019 vs projected $34B.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">The "offset" is the higher payments to those earning between $125,000 and $250,000 who would retire in 2019. </FONT></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">1.Average income subject to the SS "Cap" from 1987 until 2017,(the 30 years used to calculate SS annuity) = $85,902. </FONT><FONT size="4" color="#800000">Annuity payable = <STRONG>$28,178 </STRONG>(90% first $791, 32% next $3,977, 15% all over $4768)</FONT></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">2. Average from 1988 to 2018 with $250K cap = $93,187. Annuity payable = <STRONG>$29,216,</STRONG> and increase of $1038 PER YEAR</FONT></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">3. TOTAL number of persons turning 65 in 2019=3,650.000</FONT></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">4. Number in the +250K income bracket = 13.2% or 480,000</FONT></P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">5<STRONG>. TOTAL increase in outlay with $250,000 cap $4.9BILLION, or about half the<EM> interest earned</EM> on the additional $218B in revenue</STRONG></FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#800000">So good people, do you want to work longer and receive less than you've been promised for the last 30 years, or do you want to</FONT></P><P><STRONG><FONT size="4" color="#800000">VOTE OUT THE NRAGOP AND SAVE SS...</FONT></STRONG></P><P><EM><STRONG><FONT size="4" color="#800000">AND YOUR GRANDKIDS</FONT></STRONG></EM></P>Sat, 17 Mar 2018 18:26:50 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982857#M808348Olderscout662018-03-17T18:26:50ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982865#M808355
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="639942"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">One more time for the mathematically challenged:</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">$1,983Billion = Income BETWEEN $125,000 and $250,000</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 246Billion = +FICA collected with cap at $250,000</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">$&nbsp;&nbsp; 957Billion = Total revenue collected in 2017</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">$1,205Billion = new total collected for 2018</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">$&nbsp;&nbsp; 987Billiom = total outlay in 2018</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">$&nbsp;&nbsp;<STRONG> 218Billion</STRONG> = INCREASE in SSTF in 2019 vs projected $34B.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">The "offset" is the higher payments to those earning between $125,000 and $250,000 who would retire in 2019. </FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">1.Average income subject to the SS "Cap" from 1987 until 2017,(the 30 years used to calculate SS annuity) = $85,902. </FONT><FONT color="#800000" size="4">Annuity payable = <STRONG>$28,178 </STRONG>(90% first $791, 32% next $3,977, 15% all over $4768)</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">2. Average from 1988 to 2018 with $250K cap = $93,187. Annuity payable = <STRONG>$29,216,</STRONG> and increase of $1038 PER YEAR</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">3. TOTAL number of persons turning 65 in 2019=3,650.000</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">4. Number in the +250K income bracket = 13.2% or 480,000</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">5<STRONG>. TOTAL increase in outlay with $250,000 cap $4.9BILLION, or about half the<EM> interest earned</EM> on the additional $218B in revenue</STRONG></FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">So good people, do you want to work longer and receive less than you've been promised for the last 30 years, or do you want to</FONT></P><P><STRONG><FONT color="#800000" size="4">VOTE OUT THE NRAGOP AND SAVE SS...</FONT></STRONG></P><P><EM><STRONG><FONT color="#800000" size="4">AND YOUR GRANDKIDS</FONT></STRONG></EM></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4"><STRONG>So the standard Socialist MO again - redistribution of money. It's simple when you have the brilliant idea to take other people's money and give it to others.</STRONG></FONT></P>Sat, 17 Mar 2018 18:56:28 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982865#M808355NOTHAPPENING2018-03-17T18:56:28ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982983#M808450
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="598445"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="639942"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">One more time for the mathematically challenged:</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">$1,983Billion = Income BETWEEN $125,000 and $250,000</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 246Billion = +FICA collected with cap at $250,000</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">$&nbsp;&nbsp; 957Billion = Total revenue collected in 2017</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">$1,205Billion = new total collected for 2018</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">$&nbsp;&nbsp; 987Billiom = total outlay in 2018</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">$&nbsp;&nbsp;<STRONG> 218Billion</STRONG> = INCREASE in SSTF in 2019 vs projected $34B.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">The "offset" is the higher payments to those earning between $125,000 and $250,000 who would retire in 2019. </FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">1.Average income subject to the SS "Cap" from 1987 until 2017,(the 30 years used to calculate SS annuity) = $85,902. </FONT><FONT color="#800000" size="4">Annuity payable = <STRONG>$28,178 </STRONG>(90% first $791, 32% next $3,977, 15% all over $4768)</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">2. Average from 1988 to 2018 with $250K cap = $93,187. Annuity payable = <STRONG>$29,216,</STRONG> and increase of $1038 PER YEAR</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">3. TOTAL number of persons turning 65 in 2019=3,650.000</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">4. Number in the +250K income bracket = 13.2% or 480,000</FONT></P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">5<STRONG>. TOTAL increase in outlay with $250,000 cap $4.9BILLION, or about half the<EM> interest earned</EM> on the additional $218B in revenue</STRONG></FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT color="#800000" size="4">So good people, do you want to work longer and receive less than you've been promised for the last 30 years, or do you want to</FONT></P><P><STRONG><FONT color="#800000" size="4">VOTE OUT THE NRAGOP AND SAVE SS...</FONT></STRONG></P><P><EM><STRONG><FONT color="#800000" size="4">AND YOUR GRANDKIDS</FONT></STRONG></EM></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4"><STRONG>So the standard Socialist MO again - redistribution of money. It's simple when you have the brilliant idea to take other people's money and give it to others.</STRONG></FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So you are telling us that the Reb. Tax law was really a Socialist project as it takes money from the middle class and gives it to the top 1%. You supported that law so we now hear from you that you have become a standard Socialist. Well we have seen Trump do that time and time again&nbsp; so it must be the new far right.</P>Sun, 18 Mar 2018 01:04:44 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1982983#M808450john2582018-03-18T01:04:44ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1983039#M808485
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1891044"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So you are telling us that the Reb. Tax law was really a Socialist project as it takes money from the middle class and gives it to the top 1%. You supported that law so we now hear from you that you have become a standard Socialist. Well we have seen Trump do that time and time again&nbsp; so it must be the new far right.</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">So allowing a person to keep a bit of his own earned income is not taking it from someone else.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">Wealth redistribution does smack of socialism.&nbsp;</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">BTW - there is no Reb. Tax Law.</FONT></P>Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:45:12 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1983039#M808485rk91522018-03-18T13:45:12ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1983054#M808496
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="5672481"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><LI-USER uid="1891044"></LI-USER>wrote:<BR /><BLOCKQUOTE><HR /><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So you are telling us that the Reb. Tax law was really a Socialist project as it takes money from the middle class and gives it to the top 1%. You supported that law so we now hear from you that you have become a standard Socialist. Well we have seen Trump do that time and time again&nbsp; so it must be the new far right.</P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">So allowing a person to keep a bit of his own earned income is not taking it from someone else.</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">Wealth redistribution does smack of socialism.&nbsp;</FONT></P><P>&nbsp;</P><P><FONT size="4" color="#000080">BTW - there is no Reb. Tax Law.</FONT></P><HR /></BLOCKQUOTE><P><FONT size="4" color="#FF0000">Rk, what you need to really understand is that your idea of what is wealth redistribution is perhaps not correct?</FONT><BR /><FONT size="4" color="#FF0000">Perhaps there are many other meanings and ways of redistributing wealth that do not "smack of socialism"?&nbsp; &nbsp;sorry, RK&nbsp; but you only present one way, and we all know that there are many ways.</FONT></P>Sun, 18 Mar 2018 14:08:53 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1983054#M808496Roxanna352018-03-18T14:08:53ZRe: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITYhttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1983237#M808611
rk posted..<BR /><BR />So allowing a person to keep a bit of his own earned income is not taking it from someone else.<BR /><BR /><BR /><BR />Wealth redistribution does smack of socialism.<BR /><BR /><BR /><BR />BTW - there is no Reb. Tax Law.<BR /><BR />==========================<BR /><BR />Well said.<BR /><BR />There are ways today that are wealth redistribution...the two biggest are income taxes and property taxes.Sun, 18 Mar 2018 20:51:52 GMThttps://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/TO-PRESERVE-SOCIAL-SECURITY/m-p/1983237#M808611KidBoy22018-03-18T20:51:52Z